Sparhafoc said:"For me, the picture you are painting of this core of America is very dark where it's either they get everything they think they want, or they feel threatened."

Bingo. The country is pretty scary right now. Everyone wants everything right now and they'll burn it down to get what they want.Everyone is right and no one is wrong. What I was trying to express was not my opinions but rather to express the dialogue which is going on. I am not an economist, I know poverty when I see it though and the closed factories which were open before and the closed paper mills which were open before aren't my opinion. They are facts that happened because at some point it became cheaper to make it elsewhere and companies sent their money overseas. How to fix this is complex but the people blame the leadership whether it's their fault or not.

It's not just heartland that is acting this way. The 'progressives' will assault you, and I mean this with no hyperbole, for wearing a MAGA Hat in public. You will be hit or have your hat stolen for daring to express yourself in public and to simply defend Trump is enough to to have people accuse you of being a Nazi, a racist, a misogynist or some other kind of irreversible label which ends all possible discussion. The country is tearing itself apart from the inside because of a struggle which is intractable and neither side will compromise. They made it so that conservatives could no longer express their opinions in public without being called all the terrible 'ists' or 'phobes' in the world so they expressed themselves at the voting booth.

For example...

he_who_is_nobody saw me defending Trump and instantly decided to let me know what a jerk I am with amazingly vitriolic rhetoric. This is my favorite part...

MatthewLee wrote:Also remember when Same Sex marriage was legalized? As a Christian, I have no problem with this. I think that if as Christians we try to legislate our opinions and beliefs we are guilty of theocracy and that is a great evil. On the other hand... the legislation is beginning to penalize us for our faith. I don't know if you know this but when Same-Sex marriage was legalized it overturned 32 state Constitutions which all had amendments voted into them which defined marriage. Even one of the Supreme Court Justices (Scalia) called it "super-judicial tyranny." The process was subverted and the people weren't asked. They could have been shown the light and made the right choice but they weren't given the chance. The Supreme Court made the choice for them and now it's starting to become illegal to even express a dissenting opinion in your business. Freedom of conscience is now no longer expedient enough for our legislature. The common people are watching their country become a place which seems to penalize them for being working Christians. Since the majority of our population are in fact, just that, it was easy for the Republicans to take advantage of this and slide into office. The Democrats disenfranchised the majority on behalf of partisan gains. People are afraid and that is the climate in which people like Trump appear.

Also remember when Interracial Marriage was legalized? As a white guy, I have no problem with this. I think that if as white people we try to legislate our opinions and beliefs we are guilty of racism and that is a great evil. On the other hand... the legislation is beginning to penalize us for our belief. I don't know if you know this but when Interracial Marriage was legalized it overturned X state Constitutions which all had amendments voted into them which did not allow the races to marry. Even one of the Supreme Court Justices (Scalia) called it "super-judicial tyranny." The process was subverted and the people weren't asked. They could have been shown the light and made the right choice but they weren't given the chance. The Supreme Court made the choice for them and now it's starting to become illegal to even express a dissenting opinion in your business. Freedom of conscience is now no longer expedient enough for our legislature. The common people are watching their country become a place which seems to penalize them for being working racists. Since the majority of our population are in fact, just that, it was easy for the Republicans to take advantage of this and slide into office. The Democrats disenfranchised the majority on behalf of partisan gains. People are afraid and that is the climate in which people like Trump appear.

See, now because I defended Trump and expressed a Christian faith I got called racist. Now I know he was trying to establish a link between Christian ideas which differ from those of the public dialogue but what he literally did was substitute the word "Christian" with the word "Racist" and this is what we deal with every day in America. There is no middle ground. White, Christian people are automatically by default homophobic, racist bigots exercising unfair privilege. I'm going to address this presently.

There is only non-substantive rhetoric by partisan interests which will burn the whole place down to get what they want. Worst of all, none of them actually know what they want until Facebook tells them.

MatthewLee wrote:All debate is no longer permitted. Skepticism is forbidden. You accept the party line, you accept the dialogue exactly as societal orthodoxy applies or you are a bigot and there is no further discussion. We can't share evidence, we can't discuss scientific evidence in this matter, because it is ASSUMED that no possible empirical data could EVER disprove this obviously true assertion. Therefore to hold another opinion is to be tantamount to a racist by false equivalence.

No debate is permitted? Skepticism is forbidden? No further discussion? Are you on the same forum the rest of us are on? That would explain why you are the only one that thinks I was calling you a racist.

All this comes from one argument I made, yet MatthewLee responded several times and none of those were actually directed at me. One wonders why all this effort while also sidestepping me and my actual point.

MatthewLee wrote:It was turned into a comparison of Christian moral convictions and racism. If you believe that Christian religious convictions are as absurd as racism then we have nothing left to discuss on this matter because neither of us find any common ground.

Nope. No, it was not;

he_who_is_nobody wrote:Now, I will agree that that reductio ad absurdum was not my best work. I was in a rush (and also why I wrote won as one in that post ). However, I think my point is clear since three other people got it. As Collecemall said, "But one might wonder why the racism sticks out yet the bigotry it was derived from is tolerable to you?" In addition, the reason I used interracial marriage as interchangeable with gay marriage is because both were decided in the courts, thus both overturned state constitutions. That fact seemed to be a reason you were so upset about this, thus I thought it would be a good comparison.

Perhaps after I repeat myself you will actually address what I said and not your perception.

MatthewLee wrote:If all he used was a reductio ad absurdium then show me how his argument demonstrated that mine led to a ridiculous, absurd or impractical conclusion. My premise was that if you let the process work the way the Constitution says it should it would have resulted in the same outcome without disenfranchising 32 states worth of voters from their right to due process through representative government. Scalia and Thomas both say as much in their dissents. Scalia specifically cited the importance of "who rules me." Read them and realize this ins't about validation of anyone's lifestyle or orientation and isn't supposed to be. It was about due process which is being stomped on for partisan interests.

Do you also believe this for Loving v. Virginia, that that issue would have had the same outcome as today, and that It was okay for people living in those states to put up with it until it became fair? Remember, that was also decided in the courts and over turned disenfranchised states worth of voters from their right to due process through representative government. Beyond that, I think it is asinine to think that all the states would have voted in gay marriage, when just a few years prior a person won the White House while campaigning about amending the constitution to never allow gay marriage. Oh, and I think that all the text you are wasting trying to demonstrate that you are not a racist/bigot while failing to address my actual point (or me) seems to demonstrate that your statement does lead to a ridiculous, absurd, and impartial conclusion.

In addition, to bring this back to baking of a cake, what if the baker was a Mormon and would not sell a wedding take to an interracial couple because of her religious faith? Would you also be fine with that?

MatthewLee wrote:He said what I’m trying to say. The allusion, regardless of the logical attempt to show my argument was fallacious… the allusion was just that… that any opposition to same sex marriage is akin to racism as being an arbitrary prejudice based on immutable characteristics.

Sparhafoc wrote:No, sorry Matthew but you're beginning to make yourself look like an idiot. You've been told by several people what the intent of HWIN's post was, even by HWIN himself - you made an erroneous assumption which is fine, but continually digging when you've found yourself in a hole doesn't look sensible.

Perhaps seeing it enough times from different people will help it stick.

MatthewLee wrote:Bill Nye said on his show… had an expert say on his show… that there is no gay gene.

MatthewLee wrote:Free speech, even abhorrent speech, must be protected and free religion… even when abhorrent, must be protected.

Than we should tolerate cannibalism when it is a religious belief?

MatthewLee wrote:To support other ideologies violates this deeply held belief. As an atheist would you ask a Muslim to make you a cake with the Prophet Mohammed on it for a speech about how evil Islam is… and then sue them for refusing you service on religious grounds because they denied you this service? Try asking a Muslim bakery for a gay wedding cake and see how well you do but they aren’t the ones in the crosshairs.

MatthewLee wrote:Now, none of this has anything to with North Korea. We are obviously very divided in our opinions and that is fine. I respect your right to disagree with me but this discussion has nowhere else to go so I’ll just rest on that most of this group seems to agree that diplomacy without concessions from a position of strength may be the only option we have left. If that is not the position of agreement it is my position and thank you for a very stimulating discussion.

As I suggested earlier, we can move this conversation to this thread, since the topic was already broached there.

Wonder how many Christians would support a Muslim baker refusing to make cakes for a Christian customer because he has strongly held religious beliefs that Christians are satanic blasphemers against Islam?

I love the fantasy idea proposed that the First Amendment means you can do anything you like so long as you claim it's due to religious conviction.

MatthewLee wrote:Imagine two men walk into a Muslim bakery. They say to the baker “We’re getting married. Will you design a custom cake for us with these designs?”“You’re marrying eachother?” The baker asks. “Ummm yes.. we’re gay. Duh.” Says one of the men, surprised at having to explain himself. Now it’s a cake for a wedding between two gay men. It’s a cake for a gay wedding. A cake for a wedding between two gay men. A gay wedding cake. It’s a definition. To a practitioner of Islam it is a very important distinction and therefore it is necessary to specify. They would expect you mean a man and a woman because their faith does not permit marriage between same sex couples.

A wedding cake for two same sex partners is defined as so because either two same sex partners ask for it or it has writing or some other indication on it that indicates two people of the same sex will be using it as their wedding cake. If a wedding was just a wedding this wouldn’t still be in the Supreme Court. This is a matter of some debate.

I'll respond to your longer post later, but I have to ask if you're joking in this one?

Is a wedding cake for a wedding between 2 African Americans a 'Black Cake'

Is a wedding cake for a wedding between a man and a woman a 'Heterosexual Cake'?

See? Reductio ad absurdums are specifically intended to show you the error of your reasoning.

Why do your reductions always go back to race? You have to see the category error in comparing race and orientation? I was being a bit cheeky, I will admit. In the example I was giving about trying to get a Muslim bakery to make a cake for a wedding between two people of the same sex I had no more expedient method of expressing this than saying “gay wedding cake.” If I had said simply “wedding cake” in that sentence it would have lacked the specificity required to express the point and made no sense. To be totally fair I would not use the phrase unless I needed to specify for some reason such as a discussion of this type. It really is irrelevant.

I don’t feel it’s worth getting upset about, though. It seems like the automatic assumption was that I using the phrase as some kind of slur or bigoted attack rather than just a specification needed to make a definition. Is it possible to have differing opinions on these issues and still discuss it civilly without it being assumed my position is one of ignorance or religious bigotry? In other words... if you feel that there is only one right opinion in this matter is there any point in discussing it further?

I have deep and sincere non belief. I don't want to serve christians and muslims. They are mentally ill people. Why isn't my non belief respected? Why are you so fucking intolerant?!

How the fuck you measure "deeply held" and "sincere" beliefs anyway? Im tired of seeing there people claiming to hold these beliefs, yet they get caught every now and then for doing opposite what they preach!

"There are those to whom knowledge is a shield, and those to whom it is a weapon. Neither view is balanced, but one is less unwise."

How the fuck you measure "deeply held" and "sincere" beliefs anyway? Im tired of seeing there people claiming to hold these beliefs, yet they get caught every now and then for doing opposite what they preach!

The question of whether or not he did or did not refuse them service entirely is what the whole court case is about. He didn't tell them he wouldn't sell them anything, he told them he would not make art for their wedding which he is arguing amounts to compelled speech. This is a significant distinction. Significant enough to have been selected as a case the Supreme Court will argue.

"In 2012, Phillips was asked by a gay couple, David Mullins and Charlie Craig, to design a custom cake for a same-sex marriage. Phillips politely declined. In so doing he was exercising his constitutional right not to use his chosen form of artistic expression — cakemaking — to advance beliefs with which he disagreed. He says he also declines to make cakes for Halloween, adult-themed parties or to celebrate divorce; cakes with vulgar or anti-American messages; and cakes that “disparage” the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community. He uses his art to glorify Christ, and a cake celebrating a same-sex marriage, he believes, would have done the opposite.

Phillips’s critics compare him to Woolworth store owners in the Jim Crow South who refused to serve African Americans at their lunch counters. This is absurd. He sells cakes to people of all races, creeds and orientations, and offered to happily sell the couple in question anything in his shop. He did not decline to serve them. He simply declined to design a custom cake with a message that he, as a Christian, believed violated his faith."

With respect, Matthew, you're making it more about race than all of us combined. We're not implying you're racist or anything like that; what's actually happening here is your consistency is being questioned.

The process that ended the ban on interracial marriage is the same as the one that ended the ban on same-sex marriage. That was the point of HWIN's reductio ad absurdum. It's not about race, it's not about sexual orientation, it's about the process. The process. You have claimed the process was wrong for the same sex marriage; for some reason you are not saying the same of interracial marriage. Instead you started talking about stuff that has absolutely nothing to do with the point.

So. Was the process wrong in both cases, or is it right in both cases? Your position cannot be consistent otherwise.

The very thing that gives us humans our advanced cognitive abilities can also be our greatest weakness.

Last edited by Akamia on Sun Jan 07, 2018 3:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.

How the fuck you measure "deeply held" and "sincere" beliefs anyway? Im tired of seeing there people claiming to hold these beliefs, yet they get caught every now and then for doing opposite what they preach!

The question of whether or not he did or did not refuse them service entirely is what the whole court case is about. He didn't tell them he wouldn't sell them anything, he told them he would not make art for their wedding which he is arguing amounts to compelled speech. This is a significant distinction. Significant enough to have been selected as a case the Supreme Court will argue.

"In 2012, Phillips was asked by a gay couple, David Mullins and Charlie Craig, to design a custom cake for a same-sex marriage. Phillips politely declined. In so doing he was exercising his constitutional right not to use his chosen form of artistic expression — cakemaking — to advance beliefs with which he disagreed. He says he also declines to make cakes for Halloween, adult-themed parties or to celebrate divorce; cakes with vulgar or anti-American messages; and cakes that “disparage” the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community. He uses his art to glorify Christ, and a cake celebrating a same-sex marriage, he believes, would have done the opposite.

Phillips’s critics compare him to Woolworth store owners in the Jim Crow South who refused to serve African Americans at their lunch counters. This is absurd. He sells cakes to people of all races, creeds and orientations, and offered to happily sell the couple in question anything in his shop. He did not decline to serve them. He simply declined to design a custom cake with a message that he, as a Christian, believed violated his faith."

Everyone should notice the comparison to racism there. That's the first place this goes in public debate.

Were those declines of services to various themes and groups put visibly on their website/store front?

To be honest, as a bisexual i think they are entitled to choose which groups to serve, i don't personally have problem with that in this case (Some rural gas station is another issue), but it should be mandated by the law that they put a visible statement of which groups of people they refuse to serve. Let people vote with their wallet.

"There are those to whom knowledge is a shield, and those to whom it is a weapon. Neither view is balanced, but one is less unwise."

Well, firstly, they don't 'all go back to race' - as you can see from the post which you are nominally replying to.

MatthewLee wrote: You have to see the category error in comparing race and orientation?

I've already addressed this so it would be nice if you acknowledged my reply, even if you disagree with it, before simply reasserting your error.

No one but you has compared sexual orientation to race.

Rather, what people here have made a comparison between is the way society treated groups of different ethnic backgrounds, and the way society has treated homosexuals.

The category is society's poor treatment of minority groups, ergo, not a category error in the slightest.

MatthewLee wrote: I was being a bit cheeky, I will admit. In the example I was giving about trying to get a Muslim bakery to make a cake for a wedding between two people of the same sex I had no more expedient method of expressing this than saying “gay wedding cake.” If I had said simply “wedding cake” in that sentence it would have lacked the specificity required to express the point and made no sense. To be totally fair I would not use the phrase unless I needed to specify for some reason such as a discussion of this type. It really is irrelevant.

Fairy muff!

MatthewLee wrote:I don’t feel it’s worth getting upset about, though. It seems like the automatic assumption was that I using the phrase as some kind of slur or bigoted attack rather than just a specification needed to make a definition. Is it possible to have differing opinions on these issues and still discuss it civilly without it being assumed my position is one of ignorance or religious bigotry? In other words... if you feel that there is only one right opinion in this matter is there any point in discussing it further?

From my perspective, and I mean this totally honestly Matthew, the actual fact seems to be that you keep dragging in arguments made by no one here and then trying to make them stick.

Has anyone here called you racist? No.

Has anyone here called you a bigot? No.

So why do you keep talking about how you're seen as a bigot and a racist when no one has actually said anything of the sort? If you want to talk about rhetorical strategies, then surely you must also acknowledge that your posts are more polemical than discursive?

MatthewLee wrote:The question of whether or not he did or did not refuse them service entirely is what the whole court case is about. He didn't tell them he wouldn't sell them anything, he told them he would not make art for their wedding which he is arguing amounts to compelled speech. This is a significant distinction. Significant enough to have been selected as a case the Supreme Court will argue.

It's a carefully crafted obfuscation. The actual point is that two citizens of your nation were refused service because of the religious convictions of the purveyor of goods.

It will become ever more telling if you keep ignoring the analogies where it's the Christian who is on the receiving end of this treatment because it will indicate your position is purely tribal and not motivated by reason.

MatthewLee wrote:"In 2012, Phillips was asked by a gay couple, David Mullins and Charlie Craig, to design a custom cake for a same-sex marriage. Phillips politely declined. In so doing he was exercising his constitutional right not to use his chosen form of artistic expression — cakemaking — to advance beliefs with which he disagreed. He says he also declines to make cakes for Halloween, adult-themed parties or to celebrate divorce; cakes with vulgar or anti-American messages; and cakes that “disparage” the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community. He uses his art to glorify Christ, and a cake celebrating a same-sex marriage, he believes, would have done the opposite.

Phillips’s critics compare him to Woolworth store owners in the Jim Crow South who refused to serve African Americans at their lunch counters. This is absurd. He sells cakes to people of all races, creeds and orientations, and offered to happily sell the couple in question anything in his shop. He did not decline to serve them. He simply declined to design a custom cake with a message that he, as a Christian, believed violated his faith."

Everyone should notice the comparison to racism there. That's the first place this goes in public debate.

What everyone should be noticing is the false comparison between art and craft, because it doesn't matter how artistically you do something, if the result is tangible and intended for profit, it's a craft.

It's contrived to hide the man's prejudicial denial of service based on a nebulous distraction.

The comparison to racism is, as has been clearly argued several times, to do with inequality in society, not comparing homosexuality to biological characteristics processed through a social lens into categories of humans.

I do think you need to respond to this Matthew because it addresses your point clearly, and leaves no room for you to continue obfuscating in this manner.

Akamia wrote:With respect, Matthew, you're making it more about race than all of us combined. We're not implying you're racist or anything like that; what's actually happening here is your consistency is being questioned.

The process that ended the ban on interracial marriage is the same as the one that ended the ban on same-sex marriage. That was the point of HWIN's reductio ad absurdum. It's not about race, it's not about sexual orientation, it's about the process. The process. You have claimed the process was wrong for the same sex marriage; for some reason you are not saying the same of interracial marriage. Instead you started talking about stuff that has absolutely nothing to do with the point.

So. Was the process wrong in both cases, or is it right in both cases? Your position cannot be consistent otherwise.

Please acknowledge this Matthew so we can all move on instead of having to repeatedly point this out to you.

Bango Skank wrote:Were those declines of services to various themes and groups put visibly on their website/store front?

To be honest, as a bisexual i think they are entitled to choose which groups to serve, i don't personally have problem with that in this case (Some rural gas station is another issue), but it should be mandated by the law that they put a visible statement of which groups of people they refuse to serve. Let people vote with their wallet.

No Chinese or Dogs.

I really don't think this is a wise idea at all. Rather, if you want to do business in society and profit from your presence in that society, you should be obliged to conform to the laws of that land. Unless some groups can be mandated by the government as being unequal in terms of service provision, I can see no way in which ideologically motivated selective service can produce any form of desirable outcome - just hostility and division.

I can never subscribe to the notion that the market can save us from ourselves.

Sparhafoc said:"i) you don't choose to be gay any more than you choose to be heterosexualii) being African American is more than just having a particular skin colour and facial anatomical structure - it consists of a whole suite of environmental factors."

"The U.S. Census Bureau must adhere to the 1997 Office of Management and Budget (OMB) standards on race and ethnicity which guide the Census Bureau in classifying written responses to the race question:

White – A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa.

Black or African American – A person having origins in any of the Black racial groups of Africa."

Being African-American is about heredity derived from ancestry which, to my knowledge, is genetic. Is this not the case? It's still arbitrary but the US Government and many others feel there is a difference significant enough to need to be classified for census purposes. When you are asked for your orientation they are not asking you the orientation of your ancestors, they are asking what you identify as. This identification has to do with behavior. Behavior is a choice.

Further...

HWIN said:"Is there a white gene? Oh, wait, race is a social construct. So what this has to do with my point is beyond me. "

"When it comes to skin color, the team found a patchwork of evolution in different places, and three separate genes that produce light skin, telling a complex story for how European’s skin evolved to be much lighter during the past 8000 years. "

Yes. There are genes that make white people different from African-Americans and many African descended people because of heredity. These are arbitrary differences because they come from heredity which is not a choice. This is why the comparison between LGBT orientations and racial distinctions is a point of contention. Unless we establish that being Lesbian, Gay, or Bisexual is a matter of heredity then the behavior that accompanies the preference implied by words like Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual must be a choice. What other option is there?

Akamia said "With respect, Matthew, you're making it more about race than all of us combined. We're not implying you're racist or anything about that; what's actually happening here is your consistency is being questioned.

The process that ended the ban on interracial marriage is the same as the one that ended the ban on same-sex marriage. That was the point of HWIN's reductio ad absurdum. It's not about race, it's not about sexual orientation, it's about the process. The process. You have claimed the process was wrong for the same sex marriage; for some reason you are not saying the same of interracial marriage. Instead you started talking about stuff that has absolutely nothing to do with the point.

So. Was the process wrong in both cases, or is it right in both cases? Your position cannot be consistent otherwise."

You have created a false dichotomy. First... I do not believe that anyone actually called me a racist. I have said this, I think, but I will restate it to be sure. What I have said again and again is that I believe the religious disagreement in many faiths with LGBT concerns on some matters and what amounts to LGBT rights is not the same discussion about what amounts to racial discrimination although it is being conflated to be so. The difference is a category difference because we have not firmly established that LGBT status is derived from heredity. This question has never been established in any conclusively proven scientific context. Choice is the key word here. Is it a choice? If it is not a choice and we can firmly establish this evidently with more than anecdotal evidence then it becomes a matter of discrimination on arbitrary characteristics and the comparison to racial discrimination holds. If it is a choice, and I am unaware of behavior which is not a choice, then it is a matter of moral/ethical discussion and religion is how many people handle these questions in many cases. This is the axis upon which the debate has always turned.

The difference between the cake baker case and Loving V Virginia is profound. The cake baker didn't deny them service entirely, he simply doesn't want to make a custom cake that supports behavior he does not agree with. He won't make Halloween cakes, or ones that disparage LGBT persons either... he has specified this. He feels this is compelled speech supporting a choice he does not agree with. The Loving family had their door kicked in and the pregnant wife hauled off to jail and were told to not come back to the state for 25 years based on an issue of the wife's heredity which is an immutable characteristic.

No one has ever said that anyone chooses to be African American or that such a choice is valid. Ask Rachel Dolezal if one can "identify as African American." The answer is a resounding no.

MatthewLee wrote:You have created a false dichotomy. First... I do not believe that anyone actually called me a racist. I have said this, I think, but I will restate it to be sure. What I have said again and again is that I believe the religious disagreement in many faiths with LGBT concerns on some matters and what amounts to LGBT rights is not the same discussion about what amounts to racial discrimination although it is being conflated to be so. The difference is a category difference because we have not firmly established that LGBT status is derived from heredity. This question has never been established in any conclusively proven scientific context. Choice is the key word here. Is it a choice? If it is not a choice and we can firmly establish this evidently with more than anecdotal evidence then it becomes a matter of discrimination on arbitrary characteristics and the comparison to racial discrimination holds. If it is a choice, and I am unaware of behavior which is not a choice, then it is a matter of moral/ethical discussion and religion is how many people handle these questions in many cases. This is the axis upon which the debate has always turned.

The difference between the cake baker case and Loving V Virginia is profound. The cake baker didn't deny them service entirely, he simply doesn't want to make a custom cake that supports behavior he does not agree with. He won't make Halloween cakes, or ones that disparage LGBT persons either... he has specified this. He feels this is compelled speech supporting a choice he does not agree with. The Loving family had their door kicked in and the pregnant wife hauled off to jail and were told to not come back to the state for 25 years based on an issue of the wife's heredity which is an immutable characteristic.

No one has ever said that anyone chooses to be African American or that such a choice is valid. Ask Rachel Dolezal if one can "identify as African American." The answer is a resounding no.

Define "choice". Because as I understand the word, "choosing" to be LGBT makes about as much sense as "choosing" to like or dislike a movie or music genre. That is to say, it doesn't make sense at all.

The very thing that gives us humans our advanced cognitive abilities can also be our greatest weakness.

Tree wrote:I think what he's trying to argue is that opposition to gay marriage is equivalent to opposition to interracial marriage, not that he thinks you're racist (just morally like one).

He said what I’m trying to say. The allusion, regardless of the logical attempt to show my argument was fallacious… the allusion was just that… that any opposition to same sex marriage is akin to racism as being an arbitrary prejudice based on immutable characteristics. Read that again. Religious objections to same sex marriage are not arbitrary prejudices unless you can prove that in fact, with empirical evidence not from partisan sources, that same sex orientations are in fact immutable characteristics. Bill Nye said on his show… had an expert say on his show… that there is no gay gene. If sexual orientation is not immutable and genetically predisposed then we are talking about choice and that makes this a matter for ethical discussion rather than an arbitrary prejudice.

You don’t choose to be African American, or become African American from experience and environment. You are born African American. You use the technique of rhetorically associating the paradigm of racism with Christian objections to same-sex marriage to step over this objection and directly call Christian objections arbitrary and bigoted and prejudicial. His argument… whether you appeal to this small minorities opinion fallaciously or not.. was exactly as I have described and perhaps I can give him the benefit of the doubt and accept that wasn’t his intention but it was the result.

This is a common misconception about biological processes, and particularly sexuality.

Just because there may not be a gene for homosexuality does not mean that it's "a matter of choice".

There is no gene for sexuality - not just for homosexuality.

That means that sexuality is epigenetic - due to a combination of genes and environmental factors, usually referred to as biology.

If you think of genes as being switches, there are those that are static (switched on by default) and those that are dynamic (the default position is off, but can be switched on by something in the environment).

An example of the former is eye-colour - it's static, aka genetic. (Unless the individual was born of someone with syphilis, when their eye-colour will be green. {Edit: If I remember correctly - I recall reading this sometime ago, though may be wrong.])

An example of the latter is a gene to produce an enzyme to break down milk - it's off by default but is activated by the presence of milk in the body, such as when a baby suckles for the first time. When the baby grows up, and becomes a parent, their baby will have that gene in the "off" position by defualt - until their baby drinks milk, and the gene is switched on.

To make this clearer, consider this question:

When did you decide to be heterosexual (assuming you are!)?

The answer is: you didn't.

Yet you do not extend this courtesy to homosexuals, bisexuals or, indeed, asexuals.

If one considers sexuality, there are three levels: biological sex, sexual orientation, and gender.

Biological sex: male, female, intersex (born with genitalia of both sexes), and asexual (born without any discernible genitalia);

I want to try and clarify the denial of service claim and make it clear he did not refuse to serve them but rather refused to make a custom piece...

Here is a quote from the Supreme Court oral arguments

"JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: But I thought -­I'm a little bit surprised by what you're saying because your briefs seem to suggestdifferently -- that the couple was looking at his already pre-designed cakes that he appearsto sell without any customization, and they sat down with him, and he said I don't supply cakesof any kind to gay couples. So I thought this cake was about his refusal to supply a cake for any weddingceremony.

MS. WAGGONER: Justice Sotomayor,

that's not how he responded to the couple. The couple came in and they requested a custom cakefor their wedding. At that point, they brought in a folder with all kinds of designs theywanted to discuss and ended up purchasing a rainbow-layered cake or -- or received a freerainbow-layered cake, which certainly is expression."

MatthewLee wrote:I want to try and clarify the denial of service claim and make it clear he did not refuse to serve them but rather refused to make a custom piece...

Making a custom piece is a service, so he denied them service.

He might not have thrown them out of his shop, he might not have denied them from buying something else, but he did unarguably and in his own words refuse to serve them due to his religious convictions of which there is precisely zero justification in scripture and which is contrary to the laws of the nation in which his commercial entity exists.

The thing is... all he really had to do was say say he was too busy, or couldn't make the cake they wanted because of lack of skill, or anything else... but he wanted to virtue-signal, and this is the problem where someone's virtue-signalling leaves other people disenfranchised.

I don't have any hard feelings towards the guy, but he should grow the fuck up and learn from his mistake. I bet you he doesn't though, and I bet plenty of people in his tribe happily join in pretending he's the fucking victim here.

Akamia wrote:Define "choice". Because as I understand the word, "choosing" to be LGBT makes about as much sense as "choosing" to like or dislike a movie or music genre. That is to say, it doesn't make sense at all.

Choice: (Noun) an act of selecting or making a decision when faced with two or more possibilities.

Homosexual and bisexual are now defined in terms of latent attractions. Homosexual or Bisexual used to be defined pragmatically as one who exclusively or mostly engaged in sexual acts with someone of the same sex or equally of both sexes. Heterosexual was someone who engaged in exclusively or mostly sexual acts with a person of the opposite biological sex. Now it exclusively refers to the attraction. Who we are attracted to is subjective and has to do with a wealth of different things. Preferences are arbitrary characteristics. How we act on those preferences is not arbitrary. Choices are not latent desires and preferences. They are actions. Actions are subject to ethical debate.

I choose to cohabitate with a woman and I choose to participate in heterosexual, monogamous behavior because I chose to marry a woman. I suppose then you could say the firm choice to become a heterosexual was made on my wedding day.

If Miley Cyrus self-identified as a pan-sexual and now she is going to marry a man and exclusively have sex with him does that mean she chose to become a heterosexual? It depends... do you define the word heterosexual by the subjective preference or the action?

Akamia wrote:Define "choice". Because as I understand the word, "choosing" to be LGBT makes about as much sense as "choosing" to like or dislike a movie or music genre. That is to say, it doesn't make sense at all.

Choice: (Noun) an act of selecting or making a decision when faced with two or more possibilities.

Homosexual and bisexual are now defined in terms of latent attractions. Homosexual or Bisexual used to be defined pragmatically as one who exclusively or mostly engaged in sexual acts with someone of the same sex or equally of both sexes. Heterosexual was someone who engaged in exclusively or mostly sexual acts with a person of the opposite biological sex. Now it exclusively refers to the attraction. Who we are attracted to is subjective and has to do with a wealth of different things. Preferences are arbitrary characteristics. How we act on those preferences is not arbitrary. Choices are not latent desires and preferences. They are actions. Actions are subject to ethical debate.

I choose to cohabitate with a woman and I choose to participate in heterosexual, monogamous behavior because I chose to marry a woman. I suppose then you could say the firm choice to become a heterosexual was made on my wedding day.

If Miley Cyrus self-identified as a pan-sexual and now she is going to marry a man and exclusively have sex with him does that mean she chose to become a heterosexual? It depends... do you define the word heterosexual by the subjective preference or the action?

I define it by the preference. Most people I talk to do.

The very thing that gives us humans our advanced cognitive abilities can also be our greatest weakness.

MatthewLee wrote:I want to try and clarify the denial of service claim and make it clear he did not refuse to serve them but rather refused to make a custom piece...

Making a custom piece is a service, so he denied them service.

He might not have thrown them out of his shop, he might not have denied them from buying something else, but he did unarguably and in his own words refuse to serve them due to his religious convictions of which there is precisely zero justification in scripture and which is contrary to the laws of the nation in which his commercial entity exists.

The thing is... all he really had to do was say say he was too busy, or couldn't make the cake they wanted because of lack of skill, or anything else... but he wanted to virtue-signal, and this is the problem where someone's virtue-signalling leaves other people disenfranchised.

I don't have any hard feelings towards the guy, but he should grow the fuck up and learn from his mistake. I bet you he doesn't though, and I bet plenty of people in his tribe happily join in pretending he's the fucking victim here.

If we must make this distinction then you need an article. He did not deny them service because it is proven he in fact sold them a cake, or gave them one. He provided a service. It was not the desired service. Therefore he did not provide them "a" service but that is not the same thing at all. He did not tell them that their orientation made them unfit to receive his products. He said he would not make a custom piece of art to support something his conscience was against. This is not a denial of service, completely, in the same way telling someone you won't host their wedding in your hotel absolutely is a denial of service or accommodation. The hotel room is not a piece of art supporting your choice. But this question isn't just about cakes it's about where the right to exclusion extends to faith and does not extend to faith.

What if a same sex couple comes to your place of worship and insists on having a wedding there, though? It is a public place in the public space which provides service to the community. Would you require a Muslim Imam to marry a same sex couple in a Mosque?